For several decades, there were two axioms in offering prevention programs (which seemed especially applicable to programs for relationships). First, few people volunteer (e.g., Spoth & Richmond, 2002). Second, those who do volunteer are rarely at elevated risk (Halford, O'Donnell, Lizzio, & Wilson, 2006; Sullivan & Bradbury, 1997). Although these problems persist, prevention science has advanced tremendously in the last decade and best practices have emerged that offer substantial hope for recruiting, retaining, and effectively serving at-risk couples (Halford, Markman, Kline, & Stanley, 2003) and at-risk new parents (e.g.; McGuigan, Katzev, Pratt, 2003). Three such breakthroughs have guided the design and action plan of this proposal: 1. The birth of a child is acknowledged as a critical period when couples are most open to skillsbased prevention. New parents recognize the challenges facing them, providing a critical period for optimal openness to learning / improving relationship and parenting skills (Feinberg, 2002; Halford et al., 2003). ? 2. The barriers to participation have been researched and compensatory strategies tested. ? Perception of barriers (e.g., time, travel) is the strongest predictor of non-participation in family ? skills education (e.g., Sullivan, Pasch, Cornelius, & Cirigliano, 2004). Some prevention programs have adapted: for example, home visitation for at risk new parents is effective (Sweet & Applebaum, 2004), reduces barriers to skills education, and increases retention. Innovative ? applications of technology (i.e., video- and telephone- assisted interventions) are not only ? expanding in medicine and mental health, but also have been used to create effective, low cost, low barrier couples programs that combine video skills training with personal educator sessions by telephone (Halford, Moore, Wilson, Dyer, & Farrugia, 2004; Halford, Petch, & Creedy, 2004; ? Halford, Sanders, & Behrens, 2001). 3. Empowering participants is critical to recruitment, retention, and change. Programs that maximize perceived benefits and minimize perceived barriers have the best recruitment and retention (Coday et al., 2005). Perceived benefits are highest when programming is not being done to participants but rather when participants know that they are in control of setting their own goals and of attempting and self-evaluating improvements (e.g., Halford et al., 2004). ? ? Couple CARE for Parents is a dyad-based intervention that addresses interpersonal processes ? within relationships and promotes skills-based changes in behavior among couples with a newborn. Couple CARE for Parents uses a highly disseminable model (i.e., home-visitation and video- and telephone-assisted skills training) developed in Australia. It has empirical support in a randomized controlled trial there (Halford, Petch, & Creedy, 2004); its more general incarnation, Couple CARE, was efficacious in two randomized trials (Halford, Moore, et al., 2004; Halford et al., 2001). This randomized, controlled trial will test if couples with a newborn who receive Couple CARE for Parents (n = 150) report significantly less intimate partner violence (IPV) than control couples who do not receive the program (n = 150). No couple will report ever having experienced IPV in the current relationship. All couples will have three empirically documented risk factors for the development of IPV: youth (each couple will have at least one partner under 30 years of age), parenting a newborn, and psychological aggression in the past year. The project has the following aims: 1. Determine the outcomes of Couple CARE for Parents. We hypothesize that, among other positive outcomes, couples who receive Couple CARE for Parents, compared with those who do not, will report at follow-up (a) less IPV; and (b) less partner physical and emotional aggression. 2. Identify factors that may contribute to reduction in IPV and in physical and emotional aggression (e.g., communication skills, conflict behaviors, parenting expectations, , quality of adult attachment, partner attributions, child abuse potential, family income, marital status, parenting stress, infant difficultness). ? ?
| Lorber, Michael F; Del Vecchio, Tamara; Slep, Amy M Smith (2015) The emergence and evolution of infant externalizing behavior. Dev Psychopathol 27:663-80 |
| Mitnick, Danielle M; Heyman, Richard E; Smith Slep, Amy M (2009) Changes in relationship satisfaction across the transition to parenthood: a meta-analysis. J Fam Psychol 23:848-52 |
